Historical Evolution of Habeas Corpus - Essay Example

Habeas Corpus Introduction The term Habeas Corpus is a writ, which is mainly used as a jurisdiction in federal court. As per the US law, the Habeas Corpus is known as a summons of court. The Habeas Corpus writ is duly considered to be a plan, which developed by the Bush administration with the aim of interrogating as well as holding the captured prisoners (Collings, 1952). In order to challenge or proving the legality of a prisoner’s imprisonment, the Habeas Corpus writ does not include the accounts of prisoner’s virtue or fault. As per this plan, initially the court will study the various causes of imprisonment of the prisoners and then take decisions about the further progress relating to their imprisonment (Federal Judicial Center, 2013). With this concern, the essay intends to analyze and discuss about the right of habeas corpus in the context of war on terror. Historical Evolution of Habeas Corpus Habeas Corpus is a petition, which has been originated from the English common law during the period of fifteenth century. In the year 1679, the writ became the part of the England Statutory law. This plan has been initiated by the American colonial court as a part of common law with the inclusion of certain rights. In the year 1789, it can be apparently observed that the ‘writ of Habeas Corpus’ was mainly issued by the federal court with the influence of Congress for the prisoners who were in federal custody. However in the year 1807, Supreme Court countered federal court and declared that the federal court will not be the issuer of the ‘Writ of Habeas Corpus’ due to having lack of authority (Epstein et al., 2014; Paschal, 1970). The historical evolution of habeas corpus with the inclusion of English and American traditions can be mainly determined with varied rights that it entails for protecting civil liberties. It will be vital to mention in this similar concern that the major rights of this writ can be ascertained as assessing the rights to be granted to the individuals belonging to America and most vitally determining whether individuals are imprisoned legitimately or must be released immediately from custody among others (Garrett, 2012). It will be vital to mention that the ‘Federal Habeas Corpus’ is available for all the prisoners of the US. In relation to the above context, it can be affirmed that the writ also works as a protector of human rights. It is applicable for all people regardless of gender, race and social status and especially for all the people who are imprisoned in federal nation. As apparently noted, the deferral of habeas corpus becomes necessary at the time of occurring any sort of rebellion and invasion that lay the chances of hampering individual interests and security by a considerable extent (Halliday & White, 2008). The Suspension of Habeas Corpus and its Applicability with Examples The writ of ‘Habeas Corpus’ is duly considered to be one of the significant guarantees of personal liberty for every individual. The prime intent of this writ is identified to work against random arrests and conduct of extrajudicial murder as well as inhuman tortures. It can be ascertained that the plan might get suspended only in certain prevailing scenarios. These may comprise during the situation of any invasion or rebellion and the need to ensure public safety among others. Specially mentioning, there exist certain examples wherein the suspension of habeas corpus can be witnessed. In this similar concern, it can be apparently observed that the writ got suspended during the “War on Terror” while raising questions in opposition to the government about providing justification regarding imprisonment and presentation of an individual towards a judge. Apart from this, the combat against Ku Klux Klan can also be duly considered as one of the examples wherein the suspension of habeas corpus is validated Analysis of the relevance of Habeas Corpus to the Contemporary US Situation After the terror attacks of 2001 on America, several people have been detained and interrogated though they do not have any connection with the similar activity. There are numerous prisoners who belong to Guantanamo Bay and Bagram who took the support of the writ Habeas Corpus against the illegality of their detention. Initially, the writ was revoked for such detainees who do not belong to the sovereign territory and the US government. After the successful application of the writ of Habeas corpus within the sovereign territory, the US government also introduced the same in Afghanistan. The US government launched the ‘writ of Habeas Corpus’ for the non-afghan people who had detained in the airfield of Bagram (Farrell, 2010). Interpretation of the US Supreme Court Regarding the Right of Habeas Corpus After the terror attacks on the US in the year 2011, several questions have been raised regarding the applicability of Habeas Corpus. It is worth mentioning that the interpretation made by Supreme Court of the US of the rights pertaining to habeas corpus can be mainly determined by taking into concern the case of Boumediene v. Bush. In relation to this case, the US Supreme Court interpreted that though the illegal or the enemy combatants held in Guantanamo Bay, they possessed the rights pertaining to habeas corpus. Apart from this, the US Supreme Court also ruled that the government of the nation must enlarge the regulations associated with habeas corpus especially for the illegal or enemy combatants in the context of safeguarding their respective interests (Garrett, 2012). Evaluation of the Perspectives Various perspectives in relation to the study, which is mainly concerned about the rights and suspension of habeas corpus, can be understood that eventually provide a better understanding about the roles along with responsibilities possessed by varied regulatory bodies like the US Supreme Court. In this regard, one of the perspectives can be ascertained as the role play by the President as Commander-in-Chief in determining the rights of habeas corpus. The other perspective can be ascertained as the initiative taken by Congress in passing laws, making impossible for the detainees to make petition for the writ. In terms of protecting civil liberties, it can be affirmed that the US Supreme Court must explicitly analyze the dimensions based on which the writ can be suspended. Finally, the other perspective can be ascertained as informing the detainees that may be illegal combatants about possessing the right to pursue relief in the form of seeking a writ (Elsea & Garcia, 2010). Conclusion Based on the above analysis and discussion, it can be ascertained that the ‘writ of Habeas Corpus’ is a legal petition or forced summons of court. It is mainly applicable in the situation of protecting the rights of the people and also for those who are subjected to be imprisoned. The writ can have the power to protect the detainees from getting extremely abused during the detention process. Throughout the discussion, it can be found that the writ of habeas corpus may get suspended at the time of any invasion or rebellion. In this regard, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the suspension of this writ by reflecting certain cases such as Boumediene v. Bush. It mainly originated during the period of civil war in the US. Though the writ has the probable chance of getting suspended, it also has the probability of getting reinforced with the influence of the respective government. Thus, in conclusion, it can be inferred that the interpretation of the US Supreme Court concerning the suspension of habeas corpus has substantially enabled in understanding varied important perspectives. These include the role of Congress in determining the suspension of habeas corpus ad also the role of the US Supreme Court towards protecting civil liberties. References Collings, R. (1952). Habeas corpus for convicts--constitutional right or legislative grace. California Law Review, 40(3), 1-28. Epstein, L., Ho, D. E., King, G., & Segal, J. A. (2004). The effect of war on the US supreme court. Events, 1-69. Elsea, J. K., & Garcia, M. J. (2010). Enemy combatant detainees: habeas corpus challenges in federal court. Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf Federal Judicial Center. (2013). Habeas corpus jurisdiction in the federal courts. Retrieved from http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/jurisdiction_habeas.html Farrell, B. (2010). Habeas corpus in times of emergency: a historical and comparative view. Pace International Law Review Online Companion, 1(9), 1-24. Garrett, B. L. (2012). Habeas corpus and due process. Cornell Law Review, 98(47), 48-123. Halliday, P. D., & White, G. E. (2008). The suspension clause: English text, imperial contexts, and American implications. Hein Online, 94(575), 1-141. Paschal, F. (1970). The constitution and habeas corpus. Duke Law Journal, 4, 605-651. Read More